Help me debunk this racist

[TheLastStarFighter]

o_O.Q said:

TheLastStarFighter said:

Some thoughts:

-The Nobel prize thing is stupid, so don't even bother arguing with this guy.

-Also, the lack of successful black governments may say something about current or past "black culture", but it says nothing about intelligence.  I would say it's more about education and time.

-That said, it's silly to say one race couldn't be "smarter" than another, on average.  Some groups of people are taller, shorter, lighter, darker, faster, etc.  There is nothing wrong with saying a group could be, on average, smarter.  It's not a racist statement.  It's racist to say it without foundation, however, and the Nobel prize thing is a very weak argument.

-For those who don't know, there are three races in the world:  Asian, Caucasian, and African.  Indians, Arabs, etc are Caucasian, just like Brits or French or Germans.  Also Caucasian are ancient Egyptians, who do not share common DNA with either Africans or the current Arab-dominated population.  The closest modern-day relations of ancient Egyptians are the Copts.  They can be darker skin, and often have a broader nose than most Caucasians - and Romans may have called them "black", but it doesn't mean they are of Affrican Race.  Modern Copts, with their broad noses, wide ears and reddish-brown skin look a fair amount like classic Egyptian wall paintings:

based on?

Biological classification.  An ancient Egyptian is a modern Coptic.  Coptics are Caucasians based on the traits used to set up the classifications.  That said, the whole idea of "race" is very arbitrary and humans classifying themselves by chosen rules.  But the race classifications would make a Coptic a Caucasion.